The High Court has given new guidance relating to the required burden of proof for a conviction of felling trees without a licence issued by the Forestry Commission under section 9(1) of the Forestry Act 1967.
In an action under section 17 of the Act, the court has held that the prosecution must prove only that the accused had felled the trees. Assuming that no licence had been issued, the burden is then on the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that no licence had been required.
The ruling has upheld an earlier decision of District Judge Dodd at Halton Division Magistrates Court, following a claim by the commission that Grundy & Co Excavations Ltd and its surveyor, Sean Parry, had unlawfully felled 86 trees in Sutton Weaver, Cheshire, during September 2000.
The defendants pleaded not guilty on the basis that the landowner had informed them that no licence was required and that he had obtained permission from the local planning authority to carry out the work. They claimed that if they had known that they needed a licence from the Forestry Commission, they would not have felled the trees.
Clarke LJ has now ruled that an honest and reasonable belief that a licence had been granted, or that an exception applied, is no defence.
He said: “The only mental state that the prosecution must prove is whatever is necessary to prove that the trees were felled.”
R (on the application of Grundy & Co Excavations Ltd and another) v Halton Division Magistrates Court and another Queen’s Bench Division: Divisional Court (Clarke LJJ and Jack J) 24 February 2003.
References: PLS News 24/2/03
